Talk:FA Cup

RFD discussion: June–July 2021

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

FA Cup

Specific names of trophies given by one particular organization only; thus is not dictionary material. c.f. Talk:Stanley Cup deleted April 2021 with this rationale. Also this particular trophy is a WT:SOP being just FA+cup, the cup of the FA. Other trophies will be forthcoming. -- 67.70.27.180 01:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• I will also note that World Cup does not define the FIFA cup as a defintion. -- 67.70.27.180 02:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Semper Blotto reverted the RFD, as well as a lot of stuff added to the page by that user. DonnanZ (talk) 08:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Probably because the template was subst:ituted. Fixed. DAVilla 20:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• I don't agree with the deletion of Stanley Cup because there's plenty of use in, what would it be called, metaphorical construction (like "the Mann Cup is the Stanley Cup of Canadian lacrosse"). However, I can't really find anything for this one. DAVilla 21:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'm saying keep anyway, as the FA cup is probably the best known trophy in England and Wales, let alone in football cup competitions. DonnanZ (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Is there something special to it being England and Wales? The Stanley Cup is the best known trophy in Canada, so, FA Cup has not special place under such a valuation. Unlike the Stanley Cup, you can determine that the FA Cup is for the FA, while the Stanley Cup is not for some Stanley sport. -- 67.70.27.180 02:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Also, in ice hockey, the best known trophy is the Stanley Cup, unlike in football, where it is the World Cup. -- 67.70.27.180 03:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - very unlikely to be searched in a dictionary as spelling is pretty obvious. WP handles it well at w:FA Cup. Facts707 (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Bearing in mind Lexico/Oxford has it, that could be a fallacy. A link to the WP article has been included for the inquisitive. This little page is a pretty harmless reference, to be honest. DonnanZ (talk) 09:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

There could be some British bias, considering that Oxford is located in Britain -- 67.70.27.180 03:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Imetsia (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep, it's bizarre but it turns out that there are multiple lemmings. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep. DAVilla 14:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete. PUC – 16:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@PUC, Imetsia, Facts707 What do you think of these four lemmings? [1] [2] [3] [4] ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I think they're cute, but unnecessary in a dictionary and it opens the door to many others. Do we really want a slew of "... Cup" listings, like the W:Egypt Cup, W:Rugby World Cup, etc.? Besides, who goes to the Cambridge Dictionary to look up FA Cup? Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 12:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Facts707 That slippery-slope argument is not relevant to anything that has been said. Show me the copious lemmings for "Egypt Cup" and "Rugby World Cup" and then we'll talk. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

This is why I voted against the lemming proposal; I don't want us to be bound by the decisions of other dictionaries. Let them have an entry if they want to, but I don't think we should. 212.224.225.102 13:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, there are many other entries that I dislike, but I put up with them - one man's meat is another man's poison. DonnanZ (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

And we don't have C cup but we do have C-cupper for some reason. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@PUC Not being bound by the editorial decision of one dictionary is one thing, but removing something that is included by four seems like a willful destruction of value. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

We should always judge an entry on its merits first. Lemmings can be a secondary consideration but are not an "inexorable command." To me, the argument made above and our strong precedent in Talk:Stanley Cup are too convincing. So the lemmings argument doesn't really persuade me so much. Imetsia (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

RFD-kept by no consensus. Imetsia (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)